Re: [TLS] draft-ietf-tls-renegotation: next

[<[e-mail]>]

Martin Rex worte:

> I do not fully agree with the AD's determination of rough consensus.
> 
> For the MCSV signaling, the real rough consensus is different from
> what Pasi wrote:
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg05306.html
> 
> A mandatory Client->Server signaling through cipher suite may
> have less fanatic followers by the count of numbers, but technical
> advantages and _no_ technical objections have been raised against it.

Several people have very clearly and strongly objected to making the
MSCV mandatory-to-include in ClientHello. You seem to be suggesting
that their opinions don't somehow matter because they are, in *your*
opinion, not "technical".

> The current either cipher suite or empty TLS extension RI signaling
> may have more "pro", but has significant objections against it
> because of the ambiguity, increased complexity, a 4x code size
> burden for old non-rengotiating servers and additional testing
> complexity.

If the specification text is ambiguous, we obviously need to fix that.

About the code/testing complexity/effort: I would say most people
believe that no matter what details get selected, this is not a
significant amount of work (so small differences in lines of code or
test cases should not signify much in making the decision).

> So as far as rough consensus is concerned, it is definitely with the
> approach I described.  

I disagree.

Best regards,
Pasi
(wearing Security Area Director hat)